Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage

[Bathos Logos]

So we agree.

Somewhat. While I accept that changes are happening, and many of them due to our own interaction with the world - i.e. 8 billion people on the planet, a good portion of them utilizing gasoline, oil, plastics, chemicals, batteries, rubber, foams, etc. - all concentrations of compounds that didn't previously, and likely wouldn't have ever existed in nature - and you seem to want to deny that this is having negative impacts on the environment that are leading to difficulties for humans as well. We're very different in that respect. I don't deny the human component of the impact. Even just humans moving into an area and pushing out other supportive wildlife can cause a change to the vegetation, which can cause a change in wind patterns, etc. We don't get to pretend we have no impact. Heck - we even note the impact that an increased deer population is having on an area and we "cull" their numbers. There is no mechanism in place that does this for humanity and its ever-growing population and negative impact. No one to assess our behaviors and decide that enough is enough. You won't even admit to this, apparently. There is where we differ.

Do you dispute my point that we need readily available, cheap power to adapt to our changing climate?

To maintain something resembling our current opulent ways of life? Sure. Yes, that would be needed to keep things from tipping into unsustainable, and therefore life-threatening territories. However, this point is super duper easily disputed as not being a need at all. If we all lived more simply - take an extreme like the ways the native Americans lived - then there would be absolutely no need for "power" at all. No one is willing to give up any of the modern day conveniences however, so yes, it will be perceived that we "need" power. But that is an entitled "need" at best. And is the crying out of babies who don't know any better at worst.

The attack on fossil fuels is going to kill millions of people if the left gets their way.

One could argue that our self-imposed dependence on fuels will be what kills many multiple millions if our high-stakes setup ever falls apart. A great many people aren't taught, and have no experience surviving without these things. It is entirely possible, otherwise there would be no human race in the first place. And if we ever have need to move back toward those ways of life, millions will die - and our modern way of life, so far removed from any natural order of things, will be very directly to blame.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No correlation. Temperature goes up in down in long stretches but CO2 is rising steadily. Look at 1940 to 1970s, and look at 2000 on. CO2 keeps rising but temperature follows its own path.

Any reason why you used a chopped-off graph?

Are you trying to be deceitful, or have you been duped by someone else?



Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide | GlobalChange.gov

 

[KW]

One could argue that our self-imposed dependence on fuels will be what kills many multiple millions if our high-stakes setup ever falls apart. A great many people aren't taught, and have no experience surviving without these things. It is entirely possible, otherwise there would be no human race in the first place. And if we ever have need to move back toward those ways of life, millions will die - and our way of life, so far removed from any natural order of things, will be very directly to blame.

I don't think that is a reasonable argument. Fossil fuels have improved the quality of life for the entire world.

 

[Bathos Logos]

• Global temperatures are recovering from the coldest period (Little Ice Age) of a warm period (Holocene) within one of the coldest periods (Quaternary) of Earth’s history
• It is not true that we are breaking temperature records. Moreover, we’re much closer to breaking all-time cold records then all-time highs
• It is true that CO2 concentration levels are the highest of the past 2.5 million years
• It is true that rising CO2 levels are due to human carbon emissions
• It is not true that these high CO2 levels are a threat to life on Earth. Life started and thrived at much higher global temperatures and CO2 levels
• It is not true that CO2 concentration fluctuations are the main driver for temperature variation. None of the four timescales we've observed show evidence of a clear positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture | Holoceneclimate.com

Again... I don't care so much about "global temperature". How many times do I need to say this? I even said, directly that the mean temperature could have stayed the same across all of recorded human time. I don't care.

Localized changes are happening at rates with which the flora and fauna of those areas cannot keep up. This has been observed and documented. You keep saying the same things over and over which do not refute what I have been saying are STILL THE DANGERS OF THESE HUMAN-CAUSED changes.

 

[KW]

Any reason why you used a chopped-off graph?

Are you trying to be deceitful, or have you been duped by someone else?

View attachment 63819

Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide | GlobalChange.gov

It's not chopped off. That was current when this research was done. It doesn't have any impact that temperatures moved up again after 2105. The point is blatantly obvious. CO2 and temperature are not correlated.

Do you deny this? Do you need help reading the graph?

 

[KW]

Again... I don't care so much about "global temperature". How many times do I need to say this? I even said, directly that the mean temperature could have stayed the same across all of recorded human time. I don't care.

Localized changes are happening at rates with which the flora and fauna of those areas cannot keep up. This has been observed and documented. You keep saying the same things over and over which do not refute what I have been saying are STILL THE DANGERS OF THESE HUMAN-CAUSED changes.

Localized changes due to what?

 

[Bathos Logos]

I don't think that is a reasonable argument. Fossil fuels have improved the quality of life for the entire world.

With our increased knowledge there could easily be a happy medium if people were willing to live without certain over-the-top conveniences that "cost" the most in energy consumption and pollution of our world. We'd have to work together more also... which is another thing I believe people loathe for whatever reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that is a reasonable argument. Fossil fuels have improved the quality of life for the entire world.

What's that? I can't hear you over all the Londoners coughing:

Great Smog of London | Facts, Pollution, Solution, & History

Oh, wait. They died. Okay - now that things are quiet, what was that again?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Localized changes due to what?

Due to all sorts of HUMAN interaction with the environment. Temperatures rising in one place, or falling in another due to CO2 emissions causing deficiencies in atmospheric containment - that again, affect the Earth in localities. Humans moving into areas and pushing the animal wildlife out, adding to the stress on the flora in those areas already caused by any shifts in temperature being experienced there (again, higher or lower). Would you deny that there have been the observances that I noted? Plants having trouble migrating due to decreased animal activity in various areas? Or polar ice caps melting? Overfishing of, and pollution of oceans causing a decrease in wildlife numbers of all varieties? Human impact on the environment is real, and fast, and growing, and has negative impact as perceived by humans themselves and their hopes for wellbeing and livelihood.

 

[KW]

With our increased knowledge there could easily be a happy medium if people were willing to live without certain over-the-top conveniences that "cost" the most in energy consumption and pollution of our world. We'd have to work together more also... which is another thing I believe people loathe for whatever reason.

Why would you limit poverty reducing steps to help all the people of the world.

The war on fossil fuels is a war on humanity.

 

[metis]

Some on the right have a fixation with their "alternative facts" that deny climate change and the damage it can reap. You would think that even watching significant overall changing conditions worldwide would cross their mind, but apparently some are not even aware of that or they just don't care.

But then, those who get their "news" from the likes of Fox and Breitbart really don't want to accept reality anyway.

 

[KW]

Some on the right have a fixation with their "alternative facts" that deny climate change and the damage it can reap. You would think that even watching significant overall changing conditions worldwide would cross their mind, but apparently some are not even aware of that or they just don't care.

But then, those who get their "news" from the likes of Fox and Breitbart really don't want to accept reality anyway.

Which alternative facts are you referring to?

Is there something in this chart that you think is false or misleading?

 

[metis]

Which alternative facts are you referring to?

Is there something in this chart that you think is false or misleading?

Mine was a "generic" statement.

 

[KW]

Mine was a "generic" statement.

So, meaningless propaganda. Got it.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Why would you limit poverty reducing steps to help all the people of the world.

The war on fossil fuels is a war on humanity.

What are you talking about with regard to "poverty reducing steps"? I get that there are supply lines that run on oil that can support and foster economic competition, and energy being used to run computers that make work easier in industry all around. But there is a whopping ton of unhelpful fuel expenditure that comes along with it - and cannot be argued to be helping anyone except the individual person who is gorging themselves on entertainment. Plenty of consumers who travel to their hearts content using fuels, without any reason but diversion and entertainment. People using personal computers, mobile devices, playing games, watching movies and listening to music, recording and uploading videos. All consuming whopping loads of energy and physical resources to run unnecessary systems, and this is all just growing and growing the more people we pull up out of more fundamental living and into "modern" modes of consumption. And the markets that provide these good and services are eating it up, and helping "reduce poverty" on some scale, by providing jobs, and offering new avenues of money making possibility. But at the same time, they literally hope we become more dependent on their good and services. And they literally hope the next generation sees more users, more people plugged in, more consumption. And this is very much with very little regard to the cost to the environment

 

[KW]

What are you talking about with regard to "poverty reducing steps"? I get that there are supply lines that run on oil that can support and foster economic competition, and energy being used to run computers that make work easier in industry all around. But there is a whopping ton of unhelpful fuel expenditure that comes along with it - and cannot be argued to be helping anyone except the individual person who is gorging themselves on entertainment. Plenty of consumers who travel to their hearts content using fuels, without any reason but diversion and entertainment. People using personal computers, mobile devices, playing games, watching movies and listening to music, recording and uploading videos. All consuming whopping loads of energy and physical resources to run unnecessary systems, and this is all just growing and growing the more people we pull up out of more fundamental living and into "modern" modes of consumption. And the markets that provide these good and services are eating it up, and helping "reduce poverty" on some scale, by providing jobs, and offering new avenues of money making possibility. But at the same time, they literally hope we become more dependent on their good and services. And they literally hope the next generation sees more users, more people plugged in, more consumption. And this is very much with very little regard to the cost to the environment

People should be free to improve their lives. Bureaucrats should not be limiting fossil fuel production or distribution. These leftist governments are hurting people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not chopped off. That was current when this research was done. It doesn't have any impact that temperatures moved up again after 2105. The point is blatantly obvious. CO2 and temperature are not correlated.

Do you deny this? Do you need help reading the graph?

Apparently I do need help reading it. I read it wrong:

I took the "30 year" bit in the graph title to mean that it was a graph of 30 years of climate data (the wonky X-axis with no years labelled on it didn't help, BTW).

Looking at it again, I realized that this is referring to the Y-axis, which shows the difference between the temperature for a given year and the temperature 30 years earlier.

So what you've given us is a graph that shows consistent temperature increases over the entire domain of the graph except for the short unlabelled set of years at the left side of the graph (mid-1800s, maybe?) and a quick blip around 1972.

So do you need help reading your own graph? I don't blame you if you do, because it looks like it was created to deceive.

 

[Heyo]

Those aren't my opinions, they are from Nature magazine.

Your post is primarily related to deforestation by human activities, not plant growth rates.

My post is a citation from the article in Nature your cited article is based on.
Your article is purposefully misleading by quote mining the Nature article.
I wouldn't accuse you of lying as I don't expect you to click trough to the original (as all you wanted to read was already there).
But you have been lied to. You shouldn't use that biased and misleading source any more. (And you should make it a habit to read scientific sources if science isn't too hard for you.)

 

[KW]

Apparently I do need help reading it. I read it wrong:

I took the "30 year" bit in the graph title to mean that it was a graph of 30 years of climate data (the wonky X-axis with no years labelled on it didn't help, BTW).

Looking at it again, I realized that this is referring to the Y-axis, which shows the difference between the temperature for a given year and the temperature 30 years earlier.

So what you've given us is a graph that shows consistent temperature increases over the entire domain of the graph except for the short unlabelled set of years at the left side of the graph (mid-1800s, maybe?) and a quick blip around 1972.

So do you need help reading your own graph? I don't blame you if you do, because it looks like it was created to deceive.

It shows no such thing. No wonder you reach the wrong conslustion so consistently.

Temperatures decreased from around 1939 until the 70s even though CO2 levels rose every year.

Temperatures decreased again from 2000 to about 2015 while CO2 levels continued to rise.

There is no correlation.

 

[KW]

My post is a citation from the article in Nature your cited article is based on.
Your article is purposefully misleading by quote mining the Nature article.
I wouldn't accuse you of lying as I don't expect you to click trough to the original (as all you wanted to read was already there).
But you have been lied to. You shouldn't use that biased and misleading source any more. (And you should make it a habit to read scientific sources if science isn't too hard for you.)

It is not misleading.

This is reality:

Temperatures decreased from around 1939 until the 70s even though CO2 levels rose every year.

Temperatures decreased again from 2000 to about 2015 while CO2 levels continued to rise.

There is no correlation.